The Ethics Of War
Below is a short sample of the essay The Ethics Of War. If you sign up you could be reading the rest of this essay in under two minutes. Registered users should login to view the essay.
The Ethics Of War
Root Entry
MatOST
MatOST
Microsoft Works
MSWorksWPDoc
Jason Bennett Ethics I
5-11-98 Paper #2
The Ethics of War Discussed
I choose to do my paper on the ethics of war, and plan to discuss the
morality and rules of war. One of the biggest reasons that I chose this topic is
that I was in the Army for a few years, and therefore have some insight and
concern on the subject of war. I do not think that my opinions will be biased
as I can still take an objective look at the arguments, but I do plan to argue
that the morality of war is relative to the situation.
I am generally in agreement with the author's of the articles in our
textbook, and have read and understand their arguments. In Morality of
Nuclear Armanent, Connery discusses when it is and is not permissible to
use nuclear weapons to resolve a conflict. He starts out with several
statements that set the tone for his argument. He says that Wars of
aggression are always impermissible and The only just war is a defensive
war.... This means that it is never permissible to attack another country,
unless they have attacked or provoked you. Now this could be argued
because there are many situations that I believe would warrant military
aggression, that would not require an actual prior show of force. For
example, the situation in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during Operation Desert
Storm. Sadam Hussien did not attack the United States, nor did his actions
threaten the lives of U.S. citizens. I strongly believe however, that the U.S.
had every right, if not an obligation to intervene with military force. The U.S.
had economic interests to protect, as well as the defense of a small country
that could not defend itself against the hostile attack.
Connery also discusses the amount and type of force that is
permissible. He says, In a defensive war, only proportional responses are
permissible to answer aggression. An exception is possible if the enemy is
extraordinarily well-armed and likely to use dis-proportionate force. For
instance, if my enemy were in possession of nuclear bombs which I had good
reason to believe he would use, it would be suicidal for me to choose the
more leisurely precision bombing. This means that if the situation could be
resolved with a limited display of military force, then it is not necessary or
permissible to exceed this level of aggression in the attack. However, if the
enemy you are facing has superior weapons or is willing to use devastatin...
The complete article is about 1154 words and 4.62 pages long.
To continue reading the complete article, subscribe below and get free instant unlimited access.
Once you have registered for an Account, No refunds can be issued.
Please make sure you look over the site before you purchase an account!!!
|
